| Advertisements |
|
|
|
Post subject: Quoting, linking to hate sites
 Posted: Mar 23, 2007 - 01:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1195
Location: Valhalla Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
|
|
There's some discussion going on about this elsewhere. *
I don't agree with this philosophy; if we were going to try to avoid homophobic sites/quotes.... well, we'd have a remarkably small reading list.
(That said, I try to avoid going to cesspools like Freak Dominion, or Little Green Footballs... and I'm often not all that impressed with babble, for that matter.) |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Quoting, linking to hate sites
Posted: Mar 24, 2007 - 05:16 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 440
|
|
Well, there actually only 3 reasons why linking to hatefull sites might be unfavourable:
1) Hyper-linking increases the ranking of those sites in search engines;
2) Some sensitive natures might feel offended while clicking on those links;
3) Some lawyers can attempt to distort money from site owners.
The enemy does not disappear simply because we choose not to read what he thinks, right? It wouldn't be very smart to ignore our enemiy, on contrary. It is better to restrict the damages to hurt feelings, than to suffer broken bones later.
Therefore, GRD's official policy: Know Thy Enemy. 
To avoid raising rankings of hatefull sites, one can of course simply post the web adresses without hyper-linking to them. I would suggest that we leave the issue at the poster's discretion -- no real harm can be caused anyway. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Quoting, linking to hate sites
Posted: Mar 25, 2007 - 05:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754
|
|
Links also draw attention -- backlinks are easily searched. Given a moderately engaged hypothetical blogger, linking to one of his posts is quite likely to be noticed... if not in the blog's own referrer logs, then in a simple backlink search.
If you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.
That said, sometimes you need to point to a pile of shit, if only to point it out. I am not at all in agreement with the line of reasoning prevalent on that other site (a line of reasoning that has infected that site's two daughter sites with an equal virulence). Do I really need to be protected from knowing that there are hateful homophobes out there? Is it really necessary that I not be reminded of their existence? Oh, no... I need no such protection (thank you very much) and neither does any other gay person. I very much DO need reminding from time to time of just what depths the homophobes are willing to sink to -- and so does every other gay person.
But please... the absurd footnote mentality that has swept so many boards of late produces nothing. A link is a lovely thing when it actually leads to further information than is contained in the post. When it is no more than a scholarly citation -- what do you take this for... graduate school? There is no great screaming demand for links, there are no howling cries for proof.
It's a message board, not a peer-reviewed journal.
I personally dislike links to particularly objectionable sites (cesspools, was it?) for all the reasons Vicky raised with the one addition that I brought up. They are occasionally necessary and helpful; they are by no means required. But there is hardly a need for a policy on such links outside of the usual legal boiler-plate: you don't want to be linking to something that's illegal. Any list of sites that "are not to be linked to" would be a ridiculous can of worms to open (and everyone knows that worms are best fresh, not canned). The sites you would ban might seem innocuous enough to me; the sites I would cast into perpetual oblivion might be daily reading for you.
What there ought never be is some "secret list" of sites that may not be linked to based on the enthusiasm of certain cliques of posters for posting disruptive messages. We lack such cliques and so are immune. Even if we were to develop such parties among posters... "throwing shade" may be an amusing sport but it may not be an acceptable technique for lobbying here. We are, you see, too good at it. Our people pretty much invented the "zap." Save it for our enemies; there is no need to practice it on our friends. |
_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ •
Search •
Register •
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
• 
Sub-Forum
